Some on Wrote:
> Firstly, thanks for providing these programs, they seem to be > very well done. Thanks. > Secondly, I have a need to link the libraries into an application that > is built using visual studio (I don't have source code so can't port to > cygwin) and it would seem that the cygwin/gcc generated stuff is > completely incompatible with this. I also see that there is no good way > to generate .DLLs. However, perhaps there is a way generate VS linkable > libraries and I just don't know enough about the cygwin libtool etc. It *should* be possible to create a dll with gcc that you can link to with VS via the extern "C" interface. I do not know how to do this through. > I would go and look this all up, but instead, I wonder if you have any > interest in me generating a VS.Net build of your code. Not really > A lot of poeple > have done this for the reasons cited above (icu stuff for instance). I > will probaly do this anyway, so if you want it, I could provide the > effort and send the project defs etc to you. No need to stop building > the cygwin stuff of course. However, there are one or two things in C++ > that gcc will allow and VC++.Net will not. Usually it is some part of > the C++ standard that one copmiler allows but the other does not. I > would need to change make minor structural changes to the calls > implmentations so that things compiled correctly with both compilers. Please be aware that other people have tried porting my code to VC++ and have given up. My code is rather demanding as far as C++ compliance goes. Whatever you do please work with the New Aspell and not the old as the old Aspell/Pspell combination is no longer going to be maintained except for minor bug fixes. > I sympathise with your hopes that someone will help change the autoconf > stuff with you. Autoconf is a nightmare and should be abandonded IMO, it > is so convoluted that most people end up releasing configure scripts > that don't quite cope with everything. I think a much better tool is JAM > (see http://www.perforce.com/perforce/loadsupp.html as the > confoiguration stuff is much much easier. I also think that perforce is > very much better than CVS, and Perforce supply it free to open source > projects, but it seemes hard to get people to look at changing from CVS. > I might be interested in putting a little effort into producing a JAM > version, though I need to do the task at hand first! If you have had no > takers for your requests for help on various things as per your readme, > then I might see if I can put a little time into it for you. I have 16 > years of programming under my belt: microcode, assembly, C, C++, > yac/lex, compilers etc etc, so I shodl not ahve a problem finding my way > around your stuff :-). I think I will stick with autoconf and cvs until a better open source solution is found. While they both have there problems it is what everyone is using and both or the defacto standard among the open source community. > Finally, I note that you are contemplating an auto code documenting > tool. You probably know this, but the best thing around right now is > doxygen, which gives you javadoc capablities and more for C and C++ > among other things. Freeware of course. It is trivial to learn and you > coudl probably have this done very quickly. There are a lot of other tools around also. Another problem is that most of my interface code is generated so I would rather create the documents from the templates rather than the generated source. --- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org _______________________________________________ Aspell-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.freesoftware.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/aspell-devel